Criminal Appeal - Validity of Sanction - Discharge of Accused - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) - Challenge to the validity of sanction granted by the Government to prosecute the accused - Accused raising objections at various stages of trial - Trial court framing charges and examining witnesses - Accused filing interlocutory application seeking discharge - Trial court dismissing the application - High Court allowing the accused's petition and discharging him from the offences charged - Appeal against High Court's judgment. (Para 1)

Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Prohibition against higher court's interference - Interlocutory application for discharge not maintainable after framing of charges and examination of witnesses - Accused entitled to raise the issue of validity of sanction during the final stage of trial - Special Judge has the authority to decide on the validity of sanction during the trial - Failure of justice as a prerequisite for higher court's interference. (Para 12)

Proper stage for challenging the validity of sanction - Preferably during the framing of charges - Issue can also be raised during the final stage of arguments in the trial. (Para 15)

Special Judge's findings on the validity of sanction - Reversal or alteration by the higher court - Prohibited under Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Interference only if a failure of justice is established. Appeal Allowed. (Para 16-17)

Stay of Conviction - Provisions of Section 499 IPC - Appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Judge - Petitioner granted Special Leave to Appeal - Trial Judge imposed the maximum sentence of two years without providing reasons - Subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 triggered due to the maximum sentence - Offence non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable - Appeal raises issues regarding disqualification from public office - Court stays the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal - Appellate Court free to proceed with the appeal on its merits - Parties allowed to approach the Appellate Court for expedited disposal of the appeal.(Para No. 2-13)

Criminal Appeal – Defamation – Challenge to the order of issue of process for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of IPC – High Court declining to entertain the petition on the ground of delay – Allegations made in the complaint addressed to SDM – Appellant contending that the alleged defamatory words were made in good faith and constitute an accusation preferred to an authorized person – Analysis of Section 499 IPC and Eighth Exception – Examination of the concept of "good faith" – Absence of defamation as per the statutory provisions – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside, and the criminal proceedings terminated.

Defamation – Ingredients of Section 499 IPC – Analysis of the definition of defamation involving the intention to harm the reputation of an individual – Examination of the Eighth Exception to Section 499, which excludes certain accusations made in good faith – Definition of "good faith" as per Section 52 of the IPC – Conclusion that the allegations in the complaint do not amount to defamation and are protected by the Eighth Exception. [Para 12-16]

Appellant's appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Original order of the Magistrate issuing summons quashed – Criminal proceedings terminated – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 17-18]

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Coverage of establishment - Applicability of Act to pathological laboratory - Dispute over the date of coverage of respondent establishment under the Act - Challenge to High Court's order allowing the respondent's appeal - Notification dated 27.05.1976 issued by the Government of Kerala - Circular dated 22.11.2002 issued by E.S.I. Corporation - Notification dated 06.09.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala - Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and notifications - Whether respondent establishment falls within the term "shop" as per the 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Whether respondent establishment was covered under the Act from 22.11.2002 or 06.09.2007 - Court's determination of coverage.(Para No.1, 2)

Section 1(4) and Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Definitions and applicability of Act - Interpretation of the term "factory" - Establishment of respondent being a pathological laboratory - Whether the respondent's establishment falls within the definition of "factory" under Section 1(4) - Power of appropriate Government to extend provisions of the Act to other establishments under Section 1(5) - Scope of the term "shop" as per the Act - Application of 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Court's finding on the date of coverage of the respondent establishment. (Para No.6, 7, 8, 9)

Government Notifications - Interpretation of - Notification dated 27.05.1976 and Notification dated 06.09.2007 issued by the Government of Kerala - Inclusion of establishments under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Specific mention of pathological laboratories in 2007 notification - Whether respondent establishment was covered under the Act in 2002 or 2007 - Court's analysis and ruling on the scope and applicability of the notifications. (Para No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Supreme Court's Decision - Dismissal of appeal - Upholding of High Court's order - Date of coverage of respondent establishment under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Determination based on 2007 notification - Rejection of appellant's contentions based on the 1976 notification and Corporation's circular - Finding that respondent establishment was covered under the Act from September 6, 2007 - No order as to costs.

Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2013 – Acquittal of appellants – Lack of evidence connecting them to the crime – Discrepancies in prosecution’s version – Chain of events broken by earlier acquittal of one accused – No external/internal injury on prosecutrix’s body – Medical examination discredits her version – Appellants’ alibi claim disregarded without reason – No scientific evidence linking semen stains on clothes to accused – Material discrepancies in statements – Trial court’s findings found to be completely perverse.

Prosecutrix’s version of events – Alleged rape by Avtar Singh, Sohan Lal, and Gian Singh – Lack of evidence connecting appellants to the crime – Chain of events broken by Gian Singh’s earlier acquittal – No external/internal injury on prosecutrix’s body – Medical examination discredits her version.

Appellants’ alibi claim disregarded without reason – No scientific evidence linking semen stains on clothes to accused – Discrepancies in handing over the clothes to police – Material discrepancies in mother’s statement – Trial court’s findings found to be completely perverse - Appeal allowed – Convictions set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges.

Service Tax - Works Contract Service - Valuation - Option to pay service tax at reduced rate - Whether the assessee providing works contract service is entitled to take the total contract value, including goods and services, for remittance of service tax and claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount - Determination of value under Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and the option of Composition Scheme under Notification 32/2007-ST - Construction of relevant provisions - Held, the assessee is not entitled to remit service tax on the entire value as works contract service and claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount (Para 9).

Composition Scheme - Option for service tax payment at a reduced rate - Whether the assessee can choose to pay service tax on the entire contract value, including goods and services, and claim CENVAT credit - Held, the Composition Scheme is optional, and the assessee must follow Rule 2A of the Valuation Rules for determination of value and payment of service tax (Para 8.8).

Valuation of works contract - Rule 2A of the Valuation Rules, 2006 - Whether Rule 2A is mandatory or subject to the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Construction of Rule 2A - Held, Rule 2A is mandatory, and its application is not subject to Section 67; the assessee must determine the value of the service portion in accordance with Rule 2A (Para 8.6).

 CENVAT Credit - Whether the assessee is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the entire contract value, including goods and services - Held, CENVAT credit is admissible only on the service portion of the works contract and not on the value of goods transferred; the assessee cannot claim CENVAT credit on the entire amount (Para 8.9).

Extended period of limitation - Whether the issue of limitation was correctly decided by the CESTAT - Remand to CESTAT for reconsideration of the limitation issue (Para 10.1).

Decision - Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment and order set aside - Assessee not entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the entire contract value - Matter remitted to CESTAT for re-computation of demands as per Rule 2A - CESTAT to decide the issue of limitation - CESTAT to complete the exercise within three months. (Para No. 10)

Civil Appeal - Municipal Corporation - Power and authority of Commissioner to impose major penalty - Validity of dismissal order - Lapses and negligence on part of officers - Delegation of power - Ratification of decision - Whether Commissioner had power to take action with respect to lapses other than purchases - Whether dismissal order passed by Commissioner was void ab initio - Whether subsequent ratification of decision could save dismissal order – Held -Commissioner was authorized to take action against erring officers with respect to lapses and carelessness with various works in purchases only as per Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 (Para 7.1) - Dismissal order passed by Commissioner was not per se void ab initio - General Board had power to pass order of dismissal - Ratification of decision by General Board made an invalid act lawful in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules (Para 7.2) - Order of dismissal restored and impugned judgment quashed and set aside - Any amount paid to respondent pursuant to order of this Court not to be recovered. (Para 7.3)

Suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 of the CrPC - Factors to consider - Prima facie satisfaction of fair chances of acquittal - Whether the High Court committed an error in suspending the substantive order of sentence and granting bail to the convicts pending the final disposal of their criminal appeals – Held - the appellate court must record reasons in writing and objectively assess the relevant factors when ordering suspension of sentence and granting bail - Mere absence of misuse of liberty during trial does not warrant suspension of sentence after conviction - In cases involving convictions under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), the benefit of suspension of sentence can only be granted in exceptional cases - The appellate court should not reappreciate evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and should not pick minor lacunas in the prosecution's case - The order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine - The High Court went into issues that should be considered at the time of the final hearing of the appeals - The evidence on record does not support the contention of no case against the convicts or weak evidence - The High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence and granting bail to the convicts - Impugned order set aside - Convicts ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within three days. Appeal Allowed.                                  Para 29, 30, 31, 33, 34

Constitution of India - Article 32 - Validity of Amendments to Rules - Impugned amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, introduced by the State Government, pertaining to the grant of mineral concessions, auction process, and rejection of pending applications - Challenge on grounds of constitutionality.

Para 3, Para 5, Para 10

Jurisdiction - Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India - Appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench - Appellants seeking to overturn the declaration of certain Rules as unconstitutional.

Para 15, Para 22

Mining Laws - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Validity of Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 4 and Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 - Introduction of auction process and rejection of pending applications - Power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - No vested right in pending applications - Applicants not having a fundamental right in mining - Legitimate expectation and legal malice - Impugned amendments held valid and constitutional.

Para 30, Para 35, Para 40, Para 42